Cook v. Forker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 168, Oct. T., 1899, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Clarion Co., April T.,' 1894, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit for money had and received. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts were found by Clark, P. J., to be as follows; This is the second rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 168, Oct. T., 1899, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Clarion Co., April T.,' 1894, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit for money had and received. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts were found by Clark, P. J., to be as follows; This is the second rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The first statement of plaintiffs’ demand against defendant was to recover on his indorsement the amount called for in two certain promissory notes drawn by W. W. Weston to the order…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
The original statement on the promissory notes having been amended, the only form of the action with which we are concerned is for money had and received.
Certain notes of one Weston were discounted by plaintiffs on *468Sunday, and a check for the proceeds given by plaintiffs to defendant on the same day, but dated as of the day following. The defendant indorsed the check on the Sunday it was given, but the money was drawn on it by the indorsees on the following Wednesday. This is the money had and received which is the cause of action declared upon in the amended…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Adams v. GaySupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
- Weakly v. Bell & SterlingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- Ziegler v. McFarlandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Whitmire v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Chestnut v. HarbaughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Landsdowne Finance Co. v. PruskySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- In re Estate of BarronSupreme Court of Vermont · 1919
- Chadwick v. StokesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1947
- Gist v. Johnson-Carey Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
- Szajnecki v. SzajneckiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.